PvXwiki talk:Administrators/Archive 1
request Something that I find a pain on GW is that it's not always clear if the person to whom you're talking is an admin. Some on this site now have a tag that says sysop in their signature, can that be made policy for all admins as well as being a policy violation to fake the tag? Also, I would like to request that anyone who is an admin states that fact on their user page, and provides an email address or a link to be able to email them so that a banned person still knows how to contact someone to discuss the problem in case it was a misunderstanding or a noob mistake. Yes there's an email user link in the toolbox to the left of the user page, but noobs will never find that link and even some longtime wiki users don't realise it's on the page. (correction, that link doesn't seem to appear on this wiki). :I'm thinking of steelin' skuld's admin chart from GWiki and putting it here :p Would that be cool, in addition to adding that info to our pages? (I'm not about to add "admin" to my sig, though :/ ) -Auron 21:49, 25 April 2007 (CEST) ::It took me some time to find the chart on the talk page. there are a lot of columns that I don't think are needed, but it might be better than the current page. ::Even if admins don't add a sysop tag, I still think it's very useful to have them mention that they are admins on their user page and to provide a means to contact them outside the wiki on thier user page. 22:24, 26 April 2007 (CEST) ::Just FYI, I put that on the talk page to get some opinions, it was intended to move to the main page but no-one cared. — Skuld 22:21, 26 April 2007 (CEST) Archived Build tags I don't know where to put this but, the archived build tags on archived builds aren't working. Misfate 00:54, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :See below. -- Armond Warblade 20:06, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Work To all Admins... I'm not seeing much of progress on builds checking? Tons of builds having massive errors as result of the import. Does anyone doing anything to fix that ? We have around 1000 builds to fix and nothing happens. GCardinal 08:04, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :Maybe we need more Admins? There are hundreds of builds and only five admins. Or is this something that regular users can do? - Krowman (talk • ) 08:13, 3 May 2007 (CEST) ::It is indeed something that normal users can do. If this is really a problem (we are trying to update pages and work on policy and suchlike, all at the same problem), then something should be put on the community portal or such. -- Armond Warblade 20:06, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Unfair bias in current admin list I would like to point out that all current admins have user names with first letters that start in the first 30% of the alphabet. This is entirely biased and unfair to the remaining 70% of the alphabet which goes entirely unrepresented by the current admin pool. I insist that proper and fair representation of the remainder of the alphabet be implemented immediately. On a completely unrelated note, has anyone seen my medication? I know I left it around here someplace. :/kickban gogogo :P -- Armond Warblade 23:57, 4 May 2007 (CEST) ::So if we sysopd you, would you fall under "1" or "I"? -Auron 01:50, 18 May 2007 (CEST) :::Thank you for adding K, R, and S; the alpha-distribution of admins is still off, but much better now! ;-) Generic Ressurect When you try to PvXConvert "generic ressurect", it doesn't work properly and and shows ressurect below the attributes. Misfate 03:30, 18 May 2007 (CEST) :Yeh, we know. What you have to do is simply insert a real resurrection skill instead like Resurrection Signet. Then, in a notes or variants section, simply point out that any generic resurrection skill will work. That flaw has been pointed out before, but I am not sure what we can do about it... Cardinal? [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 04:26, 18 May 2007 (CEST) :: Maybe you should post this somewhere on the PvX convert screen. That way you don't have to answer it over and over. (ok, maybe you still would, but not AS much.) Eronth 04:45, 18 May 2007 (CEST) ::: It's an extension, so Gcardinal would have to add it, I am not sure how to edit it. I am into coding, but I don't really understand the inner workings of media wiki. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 04:53, 18 May 2007 (CEST) ::::This same question has actually been asked I think twice on the PvXcode page. -- Armond Warblade 17:12, 18 May 2007 (CEST) Requests for Adminship Page Are we going to have a requests for adminship page like on GW? --Mgrinshpon ( /T) 17:17, 18 May 2007 (CEST) Who would want to be an admin? =) As a user we have just as much ability to make change and help the site out, without people constantly whining at you. Shireen 17:42, 18 May 2007 (CEST) :Cardinal has said in the past that he didn't want an RfA (not sure where, sorry). Current sysops will discuss potential future admins and we'll appoint people based on consensus thereof. -- Armond Warblade 18:48, 18 May 2007 (CEST) ::Alright. I was just wondering. --Mgrinshpon ( /T) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (CEST) :::So what happened to this section of his userpage? That admin system is in no way a democracy. I'm surprised no one else has raised objections to this. Especially since none seem to be willing to change it in the future....-- 03:00, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::Not sure how much you take that section to mean "this wiki is a democracy," but... it isn't. We voted for policy (a very democratic thing to do) and it kinda failed, so I'm not too excited about having anything else a democracy. ::::I think the biggest difference between here and GWiki is... over here, if we implemented RfA, it'd be mostly a waiting process. Let's say I nominated you for adminship, wrote up a page etc, and you got plenty of support from the community. That's all well and good, but... Gcardinal and some other admins want the number of admins tied to the number of registered users, which means that until more people register, the number of admins doesn't increase. I don't personally agree with that, but meh... not much I'm willing to do to change it. If you have any suggestions, I'd like to hear 'em. -Auron 03:14, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::I just don't like the fact that our admins have instituted a system that allows them and only them to give and take power from anyone they want. They could very well stock the admin list with people that think just like them, and that ideology group would have all the power to influence and decide issues..... Much the same happened at guild wiki but without a RFA users have no influence what so ever in it....-- 03:24, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::They could... but they aren't. -Auron 03:28, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::::So you are willing to let that possibility remain open? I don't trust gcardinal a bit, and I can't trust others on a website very much either. -- 03:29, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::::Well you sound like a trusting person Safre ;). [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 03:38, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::::::And you are a prime example of my point, I am not accusing you but I am the current admins who appointed new admins under the noses of the regular user base. -- 03:41, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::We were selected as admins, because we WERE and still are, the current User base. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 03:43, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::::::::Alright then, why wasn't I made a amdin? I was involved in the beginning of this site long before you. I never expect to become one as I called gcardinal out when he was acting like a despot but that explanation makes no sense.-- 03:47, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::::Well, I may be making assumptions here, but you are publicly disrespectful, and your ideas and comments are most of the time (if not always), extraordinarily controversial. Often you make rash decisions, and ignore many users who have views other than your own. Besides, you have made less then 500 contribs on this wiki. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 03:56, 3 June 2007 (CEST) (break indent)I don't know to reply to that.... I honestly have no idea how I can be accused of ignoring others in my controversial comments when said comments were all involving questioning admins who themselves ignored users. I'm not sure if you have me confused for someone else or what. And I do not respect those who abuse their power. I'll admit to that.-- 04:05, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :Also, don't you dare minimize the work I have done on this wiki.-- 04:10, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::Don't forget the comments on Guild wiki. Oh, and have a lovely day. *minimizing* [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 04:42, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::I repeat: I do not respect those who abuse their power. I would not use rash comments against a regular innocent user. -- 04:46, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::And I will push this issue until we get a system where admins do not hand pick favorites. -- 04:46, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::Good for you :/? [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 04:51, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::Yes, good for me, and the wiki hopefully, although I doubt if I can get certain admins to heed me. -- 04:55, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::Well now, aren’t thee the martyr ;)? [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 04:58, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :@Sefre First of all if you would like to know the reason you weren't made an Admin although you were considered (it's not like these proceedings were purposefully kept secret), is because you have earned yourself a reputation as a loose cannon. The problem isn't your any specific instance, by which I mean that there isn't some conspiracy being perpetrated by Gcardinal or others to stack the Admin pool with like-minded individuals, merely that we felt that your perspective or attitude or whatever you would like to call it was a bit too ephemeral. Speaking for myself at least, I feel that one of the important qualities of an Admin is someone who is well grounded in the community. I don't mean that they aren't mavericks, merely that they aren't excessively rash such that they would pose a disturbance to the wiki community. I realize I am being blunt, but, I am doing so in an attempt to be honest. The people who were promoted to Sysop were chosen from a pool of active, dedicated workers, and only 3 from that pool were chosen because they were hard-working, dedicated, and active. :As to open RFA's, I have nothing against them per se. However, I would like to point out that even with the RFA at GuildWiki, Admins were still handpicked by B-Crats, because, regardless of the "vote", it still came down to a decision by B-Crats. In my GuildWiki Nomination, I was ahead in the vote by about 16, however, since neither B-Crat wanted to promote me, I didn't get promoted period. So, people are still being hand-picked. It doesn't matter where these discussions are held, we still retain the right to pick Admins, that is the prerogative of B-Crats. You can tell that you think Person X would make a good candidate, and I may consider it just like an RFA, but, in both systems, it is still my (by which I mean the Admins as a group) decision. Take for example Harsh Language's nomination at GuildWiki. He was nominated by Tanaric, and Tanaric reserved the right to promote him at any time. : [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 05:07, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::Please see here as to why I think that is a bad system.-- 05:11, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::And DE, I don't really want to be a admin, at least not with the current administrative system. If I have to be a loose cannon to try to fix issues then that is what must be done. Adminstrative powers wouldn't help me at all in that situation. That statement was made solely because of Readem's comment on why he was made one. -- 05:15, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::Come now Safre. There are times when to fight, and others when to fall-back. You are not helping this wiki by being a fire-brand. Rather, you are questioning its very foundations. We as Users, as Human beings, are not perfect in any respects...but you must come to accept this nevertheless. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 05:27, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::Readem, I would appreciate it if you stopped attacking me personally and try to understand my points instead.-- 05:28, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::I have not once attacked you silly Safre. Undermine perhaps, but attack? Never. And you see, this entire charade was and is, an attempt to understand you and your views. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 05:35, 3 June 2007 (CEST) Sefre, as I understand it, your suggestion or constructive criticism is for a RfA process that is similiar to GuildWiki's, is that correct? - Krowman 05:51, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :Sort of, my main concern right now is to convince the head figures that a system where users pick admins is preferable to one that has admins picked by admins, see the reasoning behind that on gcardinal's talk page. :If I manage to convince anyone then I would work seriously on how to make a perfect one, which I wouldn't be able to do by myself so its best saved after when/if I convince gcardinal to change the current system. -- 05:56, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::But a system where users elect their admins is not a perfect one, is it? The most popular users may not be the ones best suited to be admins. I can use myself as an example. I've left many unfavorable comments on users' builds (mostly on Gwiki), and many users have responded with hostility to them. If a vote was ever held, I sincerely doubt that I would come of it victoriously. Conversely, refer again to Defiant Elements' RfA on GuildWiki. If that were a vote, he would have won it. I believe that both him and I both function effectively as admins on this wiki, even though we are at opposite end of the popularity spectrum. (Let's not even get started with Auron ;-P) My point is, a system of elected admins may not be the best one. There is already a great deal of diversity within the admin pool; we don't all "think alike." See Build talk:W/any Shouting Soldier for a good example of this. Voters do not always make the best choice when casting their votes. Let's not forget, people even voted for Hitler, a lot of people. - Krowman 06:29, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::But how is a system where admins pick favorites any better? It may have been good in the beginning when gcardinal needed help but will be bad as we get more people. :::And hitler had the advantage of horrible economic to manipulate, good charisma, and a knowledge of how to manipulate masses. Have you ever seen the movie/read the book "The wave"?-- 06:35, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::(edit conflict) That book looks interesting, I will have to cheque it out one day. Anyways, the admins do not pick favorites as it is. The recent appointments, and myself a while back, have all been nominated. One of the admins will bring up the nomination with the other admins, and a discussion occurs. Afterwards, if no one objects, the candidate will be sysop-ed. This is very similiar to the system used by Gwiki and others, the major difference being that is done off-site. I am aware of this, and it is something I mentioned the last time we had an 'admin get-together.' I thought that the user base might want a little more transparency when it comes to admin wheelings and dealings, and made the suggestion. Personally, I don't think that we will need any more syops for a good long while. We have 9 already; in contrast, GWiki has 18, with more than 10x our userbase. Since we likely won't be needing any new admins for a while, and because this debate has gotten very heated, why don't we take a break from this discussion, and return to it once we get our vetting procedure up and running (our primary goal atm), and everyone has had a chance to cool off? - Krowman 06:59, 3 June 2007 (CEST) I stated this on GC's page, but it holds relivance here as well (unrelated information removed): From a sociologist perspective, and a buisness perspective, hand selecting the people that assist in creating policy and upholding rules on a site, in it's infancy, is normal, and is needed to ensure that the organization remains true to it's flagship goals when it reaches matrurity. After maturation, the organization has set a precedence and traditions that the founders wanted maintained and thus, when a great period of expansion occours, the organization is more likely to hold onto those values and traditions set forth by the founding and secondary personell. You can not blame them for hand picking at this point. You would do the exact same if it was a site and comunity you helped to create. If you need a counter example, say some undesirable got into the admin, started making policy influences and the next thing you know, we have porn banners all over the site to help offset site costs. It's an extreme example, at the far end of the spectrum, but try to scale that down a bit to subtle and you may see my point. Shireensysop 06:47, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :Not just in its infancy. The people at ArenaNet were so impressed by the admins at GWiki, they requested that the same admins help start (and run) GWW . What's the policy at GWiki? What's the policy at GWW? It's hand-picking users, RfA or not, for adminship. Adminship on this wiki will never be a popularity contest. And since pure democratic votes boil down to popularity contests almost every time they're held, I'm not sure we'll ever have a democratic adminship promotion process. As Defiant Elements said, if we all want an RfA, I'm fine with it. In the end, however, the final decision comes to the bureaucrats; if everyone understands that, the system will run more smoothly. The entire Wiki system is based on placing trust in the people that run it; if you don't trust us, the site goes nowhere. In that vein, however... why do you think I pick people for adminship? Do you think I pick them to torture the average user? To make the wiki a worse place, a poorer environment to discuss builds? Really now, be sensible; I have nothing to gain from doing so. I'm not here to terrorize others or to show off my e-muscles; I'm here to guide the wiki to a solid grounds for build discussion. :And, Sefre, here's my last bit on this; I don't like you. I never have, and I've seen your edits for a long time on GWiki. That aside, I considered you for adminship. In fact, I still do. You don't let people get complacent. You don't like corruption in the "government." All of that is awesome, and I think an admin with those qualities would be a real boon to the team; but as Defiant Elements said, you'd need to calm down a bit first. Will we ever see eye to eye? Probably not. Will it affect our ability to work on a team? No. If your main concern is us gathering a team of like-minded individuals to monopolize the builds wiki, rest assured; that isn't our goal. -Auron 10:18, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::If it will never be a popularity contest, I think everyone will be happy with that because I'm sick of seeing things and places just turn into a popularity contest for management *cough school councils cough* '~\^/~' [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::I never have claimed that was a goal, I said that was bound to happen over time, intentional or not. And if people don't stop telling me to calm down, I'M GOING TO KILL SOMEONE!!!! But seriosuly please stop, I don't know a instance in this situation where I have not acted "calm".-- 19:32, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::"I'M GOING TO KILL SOMEONE!!!!" Maybe this is the sort of thing that is leading people to believe you are not discussing this calmly? Srsly, we won't be needing new admins for quite some time, and this debate has gotten too heated and personal. Y'all should drop the discussion, cool down, and maybe contribute to more pressing issues (i.e. the implementation of Real Vetting). - Krowman 19:59, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::....Do you just not realize that is sarcasm or are you trying to get at me for making a joke?-- 20:03, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::Implementation of Real Vetting: Is there anything to do atm except waiting for the coding to be finished? --Hhhippo 20:09, 3 June 2007 (CEST) :::::::I was thinking about proposing we change the name to just Build Vetting Procedure but otherwise I don't think so. It needs to be tested and we need the extension for that.-- 20:13, 3 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::::Just the little, picky details about the policy, such as how you guys would like categorization handled, how static builds should remain once they are voted on, these sorts of things that have been brought up on its talk page. - Krowman 20:19, 3 June 2007 (CEST) I will be discussing this with all of the users involved in the bickering, but, I am going to post here first. The discussion that began on the Administrators talk page has now spilled over onto 4 pages, and it is time that we stopped bickering and started actual discussion. To that effect, I would ask that everyone limit the scope of his/her comments to the PvX:Administrator talk page because spreading it out merely leads to greater exacerbation of the issue. Similarly, please make this a civil debate. If anyone has a point that they would like to make, please limit the scope of said comments to a discussion of the pros and cons of a particular issue rather than being sidetracked by petty bickering, particularly as evinced between Sefre and Readem, and please focus on the issue. I have very carefully reviewed all of the evidence on all 4 pages, but, I have found no evidence of NPA violations by any party. As such, no one will be banned, or even warned by me for conduct, however, I strongly urge you to stick to the issue at hand before we have greater escalation. Furthermore, I believe that this debate, in its current form on the Wiki is posing an increasingly large disturbance to PvX. As such, would it be at all possible for people to use MSN as a forum for this discussion (I know that the Admins have all listed their accounts on this page) so that we can settle this issue in a calm fashion in a forum consisting of all interested wiki members as opposed to this pointless arguing that is really posing a disturbance? And, if at all possible, I would ask people to refrain from posting in any forum for at least a few days in order to prevent escalation. Thank you. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 23:49, 3 June 2007 (CEST) First of all, sorry I'm posting on this after you said not to, but I had a very strong urge to do this, so here I am. Secondly, even mentioning a ban is rediculus. There was no point what so ever to bring that up. Another thing, why are you trying to make this discussion privite? Using MSN where only the people involved (read: admins against Sefre) can see it. This will benefit the wiki as a whole, though you might not think so. You are an admin, act like one. Don't act like you're God. The way to make this wiki better is not to just make everything you say law, but to get feedback from the users. If you make the discussion privite, how are we, the users, supposed to know what is going on? For this wiki to succeed, we need to be able to have a way to know what is going on. I'm going to get off topic, but it's to prove a point. Do you want to know why Bush is so bad? It's not his decisions that everyone hates, it's the fact that he lied to the people and tried to cover it up. If he would just say the war in Iraq is over oil, a lot more people would like him. The point is, the people (users) need to know what is going on. Right now, you are inhibiting our access to that information. That's my two cents. CWAGA Bluemilkman 07:48, 8 June 2007 (CEST) What are you talking about my good sir? The discussion never once left the wiki, and is easily accessible to anyone who gives a damn. I would greatly appreciate it, if you would care not to discuss your own personal political standings on the wiki, or at least here. The admins decisions were not at all unfounded, as both sides bickered endlessly. Now please refrain from further discussion on this topic, as it just causes further havoc. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 08:04, 8 June 2007 (CEST) :OK, wow. First of all, people do hate George Dubya Bush because he does make bad decisions. Fucking horrible ones. And there's no debate on this; even his own dogmatic party support has evaporated. With that out of the way, let's get back on topic. MSN conversations are used simply because they are faster and easier than using the wiki. The admin pool doesn't not have the witholding of information as an objective. As has been stated before, if there is ever a conversation that a user is interested in reviewing, most of us have records that we can send y'all. I have never consciously 'acted like God,' and I don't believe that any admin here has exercised more authority than has been bestowed upon him. We have pages like this very one to receive feedback from users; the only really unilateral act in the wiki's history has been its creation. Certainly, there is no such "Admins vs. Sefre" standoff; Sefre was even considered as a potential admin himself. As it stands, we will not need any new sysops for a good, long while. This discussion is a mute point at the moment, and has only served to agitate a number of the site's users. This is why we have put the discussion temporarily on hiatus. We can resume them once the participants have had a chance to cool down, and for some, to write final exams. It would be much appreciated if you could afford everyone a short break to unwind. On a personal note, I would be interested in your arguments as to why an election of admins would be better for the wiki, maybe you could post them on my talk page? Thanks, "my good sir." (wtf Readem?) :-) - Krowman 08:15, 8 June 2007 (CEST) ::Yeah, I'm not actually sure what you are reffering to Milkman... Ok, let's try to do this in order. First, as to my post saying not to post, that was an attempt to give everyone a chance to calm down, it wasn't an attempt to stifle the conversation. You're free to post, I was just hoping that some of the tension would die down. Moving on to the mention of the ban. First of all, and I know this doesn't sound PC or anything, in a technical sense, the word of an Admin is law as far as this Wiki is concerned. I just want to make sure that that particular distinction is made clear since you appear to be accusing the Admin community of something groundlessly. Strictly in reference to a ban, well, it wasn't remotely ridiculous, things were getting out of hand, and it was proving a significant disturbance to the community, beyond which, NPA came close to being violated on numerous occassions. As to a private conversation... all conversations on this topic have been held on Wiki... so I just have no clue what you are talking about on that point... perhaps you care to clarify? The rest of your comment seems to be some kind of rant regarding such private discussions... and again, I am at a loss. The reason we use MSN is to facilate the speed by which we can communicate. It has nothing to do with privacy. In fact, if you like, I will record any session we have regarding anything Wiki related (because in fact, a lot of what I do on MSN is just chat with the other Admins and others), and post them on Wiki. I have no qualms about doing that, because, as I said, MSN has nothing to do with keeping things off wiki. In fact, I'm even happy to have an open RfA. What people do need to realize however, is that, to put it bluntly, the final decision often does NOT rest with consensus by the at-large community, but among Admins. The perception for example that GuildWiki's RfA was substantially different than the way we do it here is groundless. I say that, because the vote on GW was to an extent immaterial since the decision was made by B-Crats regardless of the outcome of the vote. So, if people get beyond that perception and realize that yes, often B-Crats do make decisions, it would help everyone I think because that perception is part of the reason for this whole debate. That, and this paranoid concept that we are hiding things. As I said, feel free to ask for transcripts. That said, G. W. Bush IS in fact hated for his policy decisions. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:28, 8 June 2007 (CEST) wow. I just read what I posted. WHat a bunch of crap, if I do say so myself. I don't know how tired I must have been to write that. Maybe I was mad that the Cavs played terrible, but whatever the reason, I want to apologize for that. /smacks himself across face. Yea, so I deffinately don't thik you uys are trying to hide anything. You do act like God sometimes, but that's because you're trying to do what's right, so I shouldn't be mad about that. Oh, and I like Bush btw. I just don't agree with some of his reasoning. Haha, but anyway, yea, I want to apologize for that, and for bringing up Bush, since pretty much everyone doesn't like him. OK, I hope I can fix the things I screwed up. Bluemilkman 17:44, 8 June 2007 (CEST) :No problem. I'm just glad that in this case, the "dispute" got resolved quickly. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 19:03, 8 June 2007 (CEST) Delete The admin page currently exists only as an emergency version due to pending copyright issues. I think we should still have the table listing all admins with contact details back asap. Could one of the admins dig that out of the archive? Without touching any GuildWiki stuff, of course. --Hhhippo 01:48, 5 June 2007 (CEST) There you go, merely because you asked. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 02:03, 5 June 2007 (CEST) :Thanks, that was faster than Skuld ;-) I don't really need it myself, but I think it should be available in case anybody needs to contact an admin. --Hhhippo 02:09, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Requests for Adminship 161.88 brought up here a few issues we need to discuss. Most of them concern Bureaucrat terms/powers/elections etc, so we'll get to those next. In the meantime, the discussion is on RfAs. Some people support them, some people don't; we've got to work out if RfAs are in the best interest of PvX wiki. Keep in mind; the final decision on who is sysop'd comes down to the bureaucrats. That isn't going to change. It's worked on GWiki for 2+ years, and it'll work pretty well for GWW, so changing it here would just be pointless. That aside, RfAs aren't merely show; if two candidates are being considered for adminship and they have equal merits, Bcrats may look to the RfAs to see how (and why) the community likes each one. On the flipside (as has been evidenced on GWiki), if a candidate has a gleaming RfA but lacks the knowledge/experience to be an effective sysop, they will not be promoted. So... a few things to remember as you discuss. Mainly, this isn't a poll. I don't care what you think, I want to know why you think it. Merely saying "yeah I want RfAs" or "RfAs sux lol" means nothing, and will probably be ignored. If you write a few lines (or a paragraph, or a 300 page book) about why you think we should have RfAs, your voice will be heard. Lastly... I'm pretty neutral about RfAs. If the community wants RfAs, I have no qualms about putting them in. If the community doesn't want 'em, that's cool too. I'm not going to get in the way, as long as consensus is reached. -Auron 09:54, 10 June 2007 (CEST) :As a community relations tool, an RfA is a fantastic method to build user involvement with the site. I support RfA's - provided bureaucrats are not required by policy to follow an RfA blindly. Also, the bureaucrats should be the ones to decide if an additional admin is even needed - just because RfAs exist, does not mean that someone should be promoted to admin. It just provides a possible pool of potential candidates for if/when the bureaucrats believe an additional one or two are needed. :Once a need for an additional admin is determined by the bureaucrats; then they can either follow that advice, or choose to select candidates with a lower rated RfA (or no RfA at all). The important element here is that if the bureaucrats choose to promote someone over another user who has stronger RfA support, then they realy should provide reasons/arguments for why they feel the strongly supported RfA'd candidate(s) were passed over and someone else was promoted instead. By providing this reasoning, they both help the candidate understand what he/she needs to work on - as well as letting the community know that those in control did in fact look at the RfAs and took them into consideration - but that they had valid reasons or concerns for choosing otherwise. Not giving this feedback to the community can result in the community losing faith in its leaders, which has the potential to drive away users. --- Barek (talk • ) - 17:45, 10 June 2007 (CEST) :: I feel that RfA is a decent idea, although I feel you should be requested by someone else (also known as nominated), rather than just requesting yourself. If a person is elected as an Admin, then they feel confident that a majority of the users like/understand the reasoning behind whatever their method of doing things is. On the contrary, if you are unapproved, then you already know that someone believes in you and you now know clearly what some of your flaws are. Yes, I realize this is a short post, but it says all I feel it needs to say. ‽[[user:Eronth|-'('єronħ')']] no 21:08, 10 June 2007 (CEST) :::Anything longer than "rfas suck lol" is long enough :) -Auron 21:13, 10 June 2007 (CEST) ::::in soviet russia, adminship requests you... what i mean is it's pointless. 1 or a group of admins chooses who becomes an admin, and I believe the rfa is just for show. it serves no purpose really and just starts arguements - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 21:15, 10 June 2007 (CEST) :::::I would assume we are soviets then, since it is evident at the minute that adminship requests you. ~~ [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] ^_^ (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (CEST) ::::: "rafs suck raelee bad lol", how bout that? ‽[[user:Eronth|-'('єronħ')']] no 21:16, 10 June 2007 (CEST) :::::Well, when someone requests for adminship, as fair admins you look at what hes done and blah blah. its a good idea, letting the capable be able to introduce themselves and lalalalala. unfortunately sometimes selfintroduction is abused and you get flooded requests.. thus, i suggest that you implement this "Raf" system, and see what happens. if too many abuse it, then i suppose its only right you shut it down.A good idea to deter application is to request that applicats get signatures of at least one admin before submitting requests and they have to write a xx word amount report or introductory letter. BaineTheBotter 09:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT) ::::::Yeah, having a request like you gotta get an admins signature, or something like that will make only people that care apply... and I'mn ot gonna lie... I plan to RfA if this ever happens... ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 09:25, 12 June 2007 (EDT) Honestly, I don't have a real problem with an RfA. In fact, I'm happy to have one if it makes the community happier, and/or people feel that it will improve the ability of the community to participate in the system so to speak. As to requiring signatures, or requiring that someone else nominate you, etc. I don't really see that as necessary. Of course, people could theoretically attempt to abuse the system by nominating themselves or nominating random people, but, since no Bureaucrat would have a reason to sign off on the nomination, it wouldn't amount to anything. However, requiring the nominee and/or nominator to write a piece about themselves/the candidate would be nice simply because it would help weed out two categories of voters. One, it would obviously prevent the aforementioned "frivolous" nominations (although again, I don't foresee that being a major problem), but, it would also weed out the nominations that have that "why not" feeling to them. Until now, the Admins have nominated a pool of candidates when we feel we need another Sysop, and those candidates have been deliberated on by Admins. Krowman mentioned, and I agree with him, that we might be better off having those discussions on the Wiki so that no one gets the wrong impression, i.e. that we are attempting to hide anything. An official RfA is a fine way to do that as long as people understand that inevitably, the decision will still end up being made by the same people. Honestly, the RfA has some things going for it. It increases happiness among the general population, it allows them to participate, and it prevents accusations of Admins attempting to hide things. Furthermore, it has the additional benefit of getting to know how the community feels (it isn't a popularity contest, but it is still important at times, particularly when there is a close call decision), and it helps keep the Admin pool full, as well as helping to indicate good candidates. On the other hand of course, it does require Admins to go through an essentially bureaucratic process that complicates Sysoptions and at times can make a decisive decision more difficult. But, I support the RfA as illustrated by Barek. As long as Bureaucrats have the final say in the matter, both as to promotions and as to when another Admin is necessary, I have no problem with an RfA. For anyone not interested in reading that whole thing, I'll sum it up... give Bureaucrats the final say, and I say, "Sure." [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 23:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT) RfA Drafted I've taken the liberty of creating a first draft of an RfA. It can be found at PvXwiki:Requests for adminship. Since it essentially represents the status quo as far as RfA's are concerned and does not represent a major deviation of any kind from the GuildWiki system, I have added it as a proposed policy. However, as previously mentioned, it is merely a first draft, so comments are welcome. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 00:11, 13 June 2007 (EDT) :When will I be nominated? *prays* —[[User:SigmA|'Sig'mA]] 22:54, 18 June 2007 (EDT) ::You can nominate yourself at this point if you feel like it. -- Armond Warblade 01:46, 20 June 2007 (EDT) ::I have 10 contributions or so:P Lol, no way I am going to be an admin :P —[[User:SigmA|'Sig'mA]] 06:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Admin userbox Remade the template:User admin based on grinsh's one, and put in the autocat. Add it if you want, if not put User:Blah on your page so you're still included in the cat. -Auron 03:40, 27 August 2007 (CEST) :We are already at ... -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 04:03, 27 August 2007 (CEST) :: Wait, you gave me an alternative choice, but not the origional. What do we do rather than cat:admin|userbla? ‽[[user:Eronth|-'('єяøהħ')']] no 04:04, 27 August 2007 (CEST) ::: . -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 04:06, 27 August 2007 (CEST) Contributions I was just looking at people who had voted for skakid and noticed there was an IP so i checked it out and found the vote for skakid was the only contribution-i'm not necersarrily saying it's sockpuppetry but i think there should be some thing put into the policy saying that you must have at least x''' contributions....just a though (i put x because 1 doesn't seem enough for voting on admins IMO XD)PheNaxKian (T/ ) 22:08, 28 September 2007 (CEST) :That might be true if the votes were the deciding factor. But, they're not. When it comes down to it, the vote of an Anon with a single contribution (the vote) is not going to be as much of a factor for consideration (by the bureaucrats) as a vote by a well-established user. [[user:Defiant Elements|*Defiant Elements*']] [[user talk:Defiant Elements|+talk'']] 23:59, 28 September 2007 (CEST) ::You notice how I've stopped voting? It's cause I know that if DE wants my opinion on whether or not to promote someone, he'll ask me (and he usually does). -- Armond Warblade 00:24, 29 September 2007 (CEST) admins Consider making someone(some people) into admins maybe? if you look at the admin noticeboard it seems to have piled up....PheNaxKian (T/ ) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (CET) Nominate someone, then. 70.149.158.14 18:16, 22 November 2007 (CET) :Grinsh and I got the Admin Noticeboard cleaned up. In a lot of cases, the issues had been resolved but simply hadn't been removed. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 20:49, 22 November 2007 (CET) ::Ah ok then. PheNaxKian (T/ ) 23:04, 22 November 2007 (CET) The Return of Shireen Would anyone object if I came out of retirement? Shireensysop 17:38, 11 March 2008 (EDT) :Hell no. :D --71.229 17:40, 11 March 2008 (EDT) :Hai. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 18:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT) ::Yay! ~~ 15:01, 12 March 2008 (EDT) Unfair Rating Removals Build:Mo/any_RA_Bonder's ratings. There's tons of Tycn's vote removals which doesn't have good enough reason and there was no reason to in the first place. Repeated "Good =/= great." is just Vote Removal = Stupid. Wtf? These are not ppl who's new... they've been around. They are not idiots, if they feel the build deserves that much score, so be it! Why the hell is it removed? Vote reflects "great" but they said "good"? Removed for that? that's rediculous. Last time I checked, good and great have similar meanings. If you hover over the "innovation" thing, it says "how new the idea behind the build is." Tycn's reponse = "Misconception of the definition of innovation." Frankly, either you guys need to change that or Tycn has the misconception of the definition of innovation. (Yes, I know the Real Vetting page has different desc, but you cannot penelize people for reading what it says) Y0 ich halt's vote, it says core of most ra monk builds. Whether "good" ones run it or not is irrelevent, this comment isn't untrue! The so called "good" player Tycn describes are rare in RA! Timinator's vote, he says he gets a lot of glad points fast from it and Tycn says glad points rn't what reflect the build? If you don't go to RA for glad points, wtf are you there for? If any vote should be rejected, I think lot of ppl who say RA/bond is stupid and votes it as crap should be removed. Clearly they haven't even tried because I managed to get over 30 flawless in a row with a bonder in RA with average in 10 or so. If they remove your enchant, just cast it again! it's not that big of a deal. If they remove all, yea you're screwed, but every build has a counter. Easy to counter? yes, but rare enchant removal is the metagame of RA!! It must be accepted as is, not what they want it to be! On top of all that, that page is a more of a guide than a template! not what you run, but what is commonly used. If they want more healing or active prot, add the freaking skill in there. Even the elite slot is empty. -- Grumpy (T| ) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (EDT) Gonna add one more point, I think when it comes to votes, it should be open as possible. That is, just remove scam/possible scam (sock puppets) and things that are completely idiotic/offensive. You guys are afterall asking for public's opinion. Btw, everything after the bolded If on the above paragraph is just ranting... not something that needs to be done. -- Grumpy (T| ) 00:29, 17 April 2008 (EDT) :PvX:APPEAL. -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue/ /complain) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (EDT) ::A user may disagree with a vote struck by a Build Master or Administrator. Also, he pretty much explained those conditions mentioned at PvX:APPEAL were not there. You sent him a link which says he's right... was that your point or what? Frans 02:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT) :::Read the part that says "To file an appeal, users must do the following:" and, more importantly, the directions following. Those directions were not followed here, thus the request is likely being ignored. -Auroñ 02:34, 17 April 2008 (EDT) ::::That page is new to me. :P Well, posted there. -- Grumpy (T| ) 10:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)